We told you so. Willis Eschenbach pointed out weeks ago how pointless and futile the McKibben driven 350.org protests about the XL pipeline were, because they did nothing to alter the fact that the oil would still be used, somewhere. See The Only Choice Is Where It Gets Burned
I mentioned in an essay Friday that:
Dr. Christy ended his essay with the title of this post saying “Don’t demonize energy, because without energy, life is brutal and short”….I thought those were good words to consider, especially since we have activist maniacs like weepy Bill McKibben out to demonize energy on a daily basis. McKibben and his followers, not possessing the intelligence to fully understand what they are doing, think “they won“.
Bottom line: that tar sands oil is going to be burned somewhere, in other countries willing to buy it. Stopping a pipeline has no effect on Canada’s export of the oil, only on American jobs, but McKibben and his 350.org is cluelessly ecstatic over this.
Looks like we were right, only one day later, Canada looks to sell the tar sands oil to China. From Energy Daily:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday that he was looking at exporting more oil to China after the United States delayed a decision on a controversial pipeline.
The conservative Canadian leader, taking part in a summit in Hawaii hosted by Obama said the pipeline decision had produced “extremely negative reactions” and that he discussed oil exports with Chinese President Hu Jintao.
“This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asian markets for our energy products,” Harper told reporters. “I indicated that yesterday (Saturday) to President Hu of China.”
Full story at Energy Daily.
McKibben’s goal of stopping the XL pipeline did nothing but hurt the United States and will have zero a net positive* effect on CO2 emissions from it. He’s not even a useful idiot.
*Update: Commenter Mark W points out that: Actually, this move will increase CO2 production, as it will take more energy to move that oil all the way to China
He’s right.
Plus Saskatchewan and Alberta are both already suffering from a labour shortage and people from BC and Ontario are too superior and smug to move out here to work. The people from the Maritimes however move here all the time and are smart enough to go where the work is instead of just complaining and demanding the world should bring everything to them.
Ottawa has thrust trade with Asia to the top of its economic agenda after the Obama administration imposed a potentially fatal delay on a multibillion-dollar oil pipeline between the two countries.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-trade-vision-shifts-beyond-the-united-states/article2235094/
POTUS negotiating “Pacific Trade” agreement overseas now.
No correlation of course.
Time for the econaughts to stop using fossil fuel altogether. I promise I will use their share sparingly and wisely to keep my family and I safe and healthy and warm. Remember, no backsies, …… 8^D
Like most things in life, there are winners and losers here.
As an outsider, with no strong feelings on the subject, I can see that the US is not amongst the winners. What sort of American would think this is a good idea ?
Guest Post: Energy Independence – The Big Lie
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-energy-independence-big-lie
The green energy Nazis despise coal and nuclear power, which account for 31% of our energy supply. They want to phase coal out. They aren’t too fond of fracking either, so there goes another 23% of our supply. You might be able to make out that itsy bitsy green circle with the 7% of our supply from renewable energy. And more than half of that energy is supplied by hydro power. Less than 2% of our energy needs are met by solar and wind. For some perspective, we need to use the equivalent of 17 billion barrels of oil per year to run our society and solar and wind supplies the equivalent energy of about 300 million barrels of that total. I think our green energy dreams will come up just a smidgen short of meeting our demands.
Lets talk losses for a moment…
AC Transmission Line Losses
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/
[snip]
According to the Department of Energy, California lost about 19.7 x 109 kWh of electrical energy through transmission/distribution in 2008. [1] This amount of energy loss was equal to 6.8% of total amount of electricity used in the state throughout that year. At the 2008 average retail price of $0.1248/kWh, this amounts to a loss of about $2.4B worth of electricity in California, and a $24B loss nationally.
And for the current boondoggle in the Northeast we have this:
Studies in New England where transmission for 12GW of wind (24% of energy) is estimated to cost $17B or 6.6 cents per kWh or twice the cost of the natural gas saved. $17B is a midrange estimate with cost estimates going as high as $25B. This is in addition to the $45B for the wind turbines. Total cost is 8 times the cost of the natural gas saved.
I think the reason there is no economic case, in terms of transporting raw/finished goods, is the that modern refining has very little product loss. In fact, in the case of heavy oils like those from tar sands, I believe that there is actually an increase in volume after refining due to all the hydrogen that must be added to upgrade it for maximum productivity, which could yield an increase in overall transportation costs.
I don’t know anything about crude oil and energy generation, but if the object of selling the oil is to improve the Canadian economy, wouldn’t it be more effective and of longer term benefit if the oil was burnt in Canada to produce electricity and heat at very very low cost to households, and possibly even zero cost to businesses and factories located in Canada.
Surely that would bring a long term and widespread increase in the Canadian standard of living. Or wouldn’t that work ?
The “green” movement is simply the “red” movement that has changed colors. It is about using environmental concerns to advance the global socialist agenda. In this case, diverting energy resources from the US to China. If you look at environmental policy, it is always about hamstringing the economies of Western Europe and North America and diverting resources to other places where there are no “environmental” agitators. It isn’t about the environment at all. It is about using environmental concerns to further the global socialist agenda.
I look forward to the day when the Chinese sell enough US treasuries to pay for a new pipeline corridor in Canada for multiple oil and gas lines to the coast for Asian export at locked in prices and no possibility of it going down coast to whacko California.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:23 am
BC Bill says:………
But not much…? How about a whole lot? In the Alberta oil patch, [oil sands] extraction is populated by Newfoundlanders; Fort McMurray sounds like St. Johns. For the conventional resource, the largest drilling contractors are Canadian, and the oil (refined or not) is Canadian. In all my travels around the upstream end of the patch, I rarely hear an American accent. The profit going SOB (South of Border) is based on a fraction of the dollar price of the oil to any SOB company. Refineries aren’t that profitable any more. Necessary, but not profitable. I do suggest checking one’s premises!
Yes, the comment about Alberticans was more than a small exageration, though one sure has the impression that in Calgary executive positions in oil and gas exploration and development are disproportionalely held by Americans.
On the economics of refining, I guess that United States should be grateful that they have at least temporarily been saved from the terrible economic folly of refining crude in Texas. In Canada we may just have to suffer the economic hardship and refine crude ourselves if we want to sell oil sands oil (sarc). There you go readers, don’t look on this as a win for the greens, but a fortuitous reprieve from entering into a bad deal! (more sarc).
I’m not sure what the one thing has to do with the other, so you’re very likely correct that there is no correlation.
Billd and everyone else it is oil sands, not tar sands. I know tar sand sounds worse therefore its popularity. For those that think the oil sands production area is some huge blight on the earth, see if you can find it on Google earth.Then after you have found it compare its production area to the size of a city. In my example the active production area is only 1/3 the size of Edmonton.
Obama may likely come to regret this decision.
In the next election, Republicans are going to accuse Obama of costing America jobs, energy, and money.
Should the Gateway (west coast) pipeline get approved within a year, the Republicans will have an even bigger stick to hit Obama with. Throw in an oil shortage — perhaps caused by Middle East unrest — and you have a perfect storm.
Ever notice how we’re all running out of carbon fuels, oil, coal ,etc…..
…but countries have enough to sell to other countries?
Obviously, Canada is not worried about running out………..
He who hesitates is LOST. GK
It looks like “Hu’s on first”.
BC Bill: After reading your comments a couple of times, I have concluded that it is your intention to slander and ridicule your Albertan neighbors. Characterizing our oil industry as populated with American oil workers is complete nonsense as is your contention that the industry is made up of mostly American and multi-national companies.
Our industry is dominated by Canadian companies, Encana, ARC, Talisman, Imperial Oil not to mention the hundreds of small and medium producers. Together they re-invest profits to the tune of $25 – $30 billion annually as opposed to your moronic suggestion that the profits are being siphoned-off to some evil empire.
I work in the industry every day. I have nearly 20 young men working for me today. They hail from Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and as far afield as South Africa. Most of the guys here today are (shock and horrors!) British Columbians! I printed-off what you had to say about them. I`m afraid the moderators won`t allow me to tell what your fellow BCèrs had to say about you.
In Canada they are calling this move by the White House a nakedly political move and compare the current geopolitical risk in the US simular to that of Venezuela, Russia, or Libya. Embarrassing
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Yedlin+Pipeline+decision+signals+open+business/5694979/story.html
How have these idiots been allowed to impose such a negative influence on mega business decisions that could massively benefit the US. economy well into the distant future. Why does America allow itself to be influenced by this small group of idiots who believe they can change the world by hitting the US hard and bringing its misguided intentions to have such a catastrophic effect on what was once a great world leading economy? Why is the US government seemingly so impotent against this dangerous cult? We in Britain have our own problems with these stupid people, but casting them aside, as they surely will be, will not be made any easier if you in the United States allow such dangerous people to gain seriuos control of your country.. Come on America, get your act together, show some of your historic backbone and demonstrate some resolve in the interests of your economic future, Your leadership in casting aside this misguided but influetial group of anti-capitalist boneheads is vital to your future and to that of the rest of the world..
The irony is that we will end up buying the Canadian tar oil, but shipping it through the Canal up to the Gulf to the refineries, since the ecotards will tolerate zero refineries on the left coast. So, we will end up with a higher spill risk (ships’ spill risk is almost ten times higher than pipeline spill risk). Just add on the transportation costs. Hahaha! Obama is definitely not a useful idiot, just the other kind.
It’s sad, really. We (Alberta) wanted this pipeline, because we WANT to contribute to North America’s energy independence. It makes economic and political sense for the US to obtain oil from Canada instead of Venezuela or any middle-east country.
However, the product will continue to be produced, Oilsands production will continue to get more efficient, and production will continue to ramp up, no matter who buys it.
Don’t let the red-herring about a pipeline to the coast being blocked fool you. There already is a major pipeline going to port, and product is already moving west. If increasing that capacity runs into trouble, it won’t be insurmountable: more pipelines will be built and oil will flow.
There’s the key: THE OIL WILL FLOW, there will always be a market, the giant natural oil polluted area known as the Oilsands will be cleaned up one way or another.
Americans in Alberta? Only someone not in Alberta would believe that. We’ve come to appreciate and embrace the work ethic of Maritimers, and even the occasional Ontarian and Quebecer, once they realize they can practically write their own paycheque amounts when working in the patch in Alberta.
sarc
Watch out Canada, next thing McKibben will be demanding is that you stop oil sands development or face sanctions and possible invasion if that doesn’t work
/sarc
BC Bill;
It would be against the Canadian national psyche to sell a fully finished product.>>>
Oh my, coffee all over the screen thanks a bunch. The truth hurts. When you spray coffee through your nose and laugh until you start to lose consciousness, it hurts even more.
Latitude:
That’s because the oil engineers understand that oil is continually being produced by abiogenic production in the earth’s mantle, and that we have an infinite supply because of that. True, stuff that isn’t pooled in domes we have to work at a bit to get it out if the domes have move out of place to the source (tectonics). Tar/shale sands are all over North America and mostly have yet to be exploited. Solar and wind power can never ever compete with oil and gas in the long run, mostly because of durability issues.